Davide wrote:You won't guess, reading morphles' posts over the last few week I built up myself a mental picture of morphles' "persona" which for some time couldn't stop to periodically remember me of you
Anyway, after the defrost, a random map was due to finally alternate the scenarios trend.. and btw, teach all these guys a hard lesson by pressuring their borders with some "Fattipiuinlà" cities :lol:
we also should hijack GreatTurn and have a hex game with GT10!morphles wrote:
- Yeah I like hexes and really want to push them harder, as I see them "topologically superior" in all ways.
pardon, I had not been clear. I meant I (and you) don't like how GT (or even LT) fiddle with limiting alliances with artificial limits such as number of allies or so on. It doesn't make sense to me. We should instead incourage players to leave big alliances with proper changes in game mechanics. I don't like to add rules and subrules and subsubrules. I think a good Rule is enough if we think about it a little bit.morphles wrote:- Heh don't know where you got idea that I do not like alliances I was just proposing alternative solutions to what some people percieve as problems. In general I see diplomacy and alliances as integral part of civ or even more any 4x game.
morphles wrote:- what is more ballance strenthening? after skimming of the links you gave I think I disagree with you here. Things like spearmen wining agains battleship, well in very specific situations its ok, mostly it's just silly.
Now "anti-determinism" ?
Vision/movement. Well 2x movement is almost needed for games of gt/lt pace, but i see 3x movement as quite too much. Now vision, well due to discrete nature of game lots of things in civ franchase get complicated, same with vision. Simply multiplying vision might not be such a good idea, though having multiplied movement and not vision increases randomness in game. Basically it gives attacker much bigger advantage of surprise as he can come from the shroud more easily (which might not be that bad as defender gets almost all other bonuses). On the other hand I think it forces more conservative/passive play as you will wish to have strong defences to avoid such surprise attacks. What I am very much for is situational vision bonuses i.e. cvi2civ3: +vision on mountains = great(like in civ3), +vision in fortress = even more great, this allows you "to invest in information" so to speak.You basically get knowledge of your surroundings for some investment which I see as very nice thing as it is one more place where you can/should spend resources, also preferably combined bonus should put most of possible attackers in field of vision.
As for your ideas in linked topics quite a few of them seem to favor chance not in the best way, or have kinda contradictory wishes of fairnes/balance and randomnes.
morphles wrote:Last thing for this post: earth base/country based/(real)continent based maps. Somehow I find it a bit silly to "reinact" history in civ games.
monamipierrot wrote:we also should hijack GreatTurn and have a hex game with GT10!
monamipierrot wrote:We should instead incourage players to leave big alliances with proper changes in game mechanics.
monamipierrot wrote:Please tell me how can a battleship defeat some mobile people with a light weapon. How can it track them and properly bomb them from dozens of miles away? Many of Freeciv battles are "impossible" ones. But a Freeciv battle must end with only one survivor. So the battleship has no other option: after bombing, it needs to desembark some sailors to finish the job, and althou they have rifles and guns, they will be in a hostile environment. Meanwhile the spearmen (they are supposed to be thousands) could reach the battleship near the coast with some canoes by night, climb upon it and start to slaughter the other sailors. To give a 10 to 1 chances to the Battleship is in my opinion, more than enough, while in Freeciv it has a 3-digit number (or more) against 1.
morphles wrote:Like no allied victory
morphles wrote: but still there is no way they could defeat a ship.
morphles wrote:One more interesting thing could be "assymetric games",
Also locked teams!
civ capture the flag
probably some other weirdness too.
ifaesfu wrote:Teams don't change anything. Several teams share techs and wipe out the others.
Davide wrote:Yes I'm giving for due that this role has fold-back to me. I'll generate a few maps between Wednesday and Thursday, then pick the "best" one. I'm delaying the map generation because more players could still confirm their participation (or regret) hence the map size would be affected.
I guess we don't need a preview leakage dossier of the very final map, but maybe I could just post minimaps or screenshots of those discarded maps generated in the pool for picking the best. They would be generated out of the same exact settings, so would give an approximate idea about what terrain features can be expected from the final map.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest